The decision throws into question the future of the team; there are multiple scenarios, all of which are going to likely going to play out on a sped-up time frame, because the season is already a month old. Here are the basics:

What happened?
The UCI requested that the “Pro Team” license for Astana should be withdrawn. That means it’s referred the matter to the UCI License Commission, an independent, four-person committee that rules each fall on teams’ license applications.

Why?
As a condition of Astana’s license approval last fall, the UCI ordered an independent audit of the team’s anti-doping culture and policies and management structure and systems. That audit, performed by the University of Lausanne’s well-regarded Institute of Sports Sciences, was delivered to the UCI recently. In a press release announcing the withdrawal request, the UCI said that that the “extensive report…contains compelling grounds to refer the matter to the Licence Commission and request the Astana Pro Team license be withdrawn.”

What’s the deal with the audit?
Last fall, the Astana team organization was hit with five doping positives: two for EPO on the main, Pro Team and three more, for steroids, on the developmental Astana Continental wing. The two teams are nominally separate but share some staff and management, most sponsors and are both organized as arms of the Kazakh Cycling Federation.

At the time, the team’s license was up for renewal. The License Commission approved its 2015 registration as a Pro Team, at the sport’s top level, but did so on several conditions, including that the team submit to the independent audit.

Couldn’t they have done this sooner? The season’s already a month in and Astana’s won two races.
The License Commission made its decision in December and the audit started shortly after that. At the time the team got its license, UCI President Brian Cookson made little secret of his displeasure, but said he had to respect the UCI’s own rules, which clearly lay out that the License Commission, an independent body, has sole jurisidiction over the approvals. Cookson did add that Astana was “drinking in the last chance saloon” and made clear that any further screw-ups or discrepancies would cause the UCI to refer the matter back to the license commission.

OK, so what did Astana do now to warrant this?
The UCI hasn’t released the Lausanne report, and hasn’t even committed to doing so at any point. Aside from its press release, it says it will have no further comment until after the License commission decides.

But in the press release, the UCI highlighted two significant points. First, it said the audit found “a big difference between the policies and structures that the team presented to the License Commission in December and the reality on the ground.”

In plain English, that suggests that the team essentially mis-represented itself in its presentation to the commission. If true, that alone could be grounds to revoke the license.

As well, the UCI noted that it had obtained from Italian authorities some evidence in the so-called Padova Investigation, an Italian criminal inquiry into sports doping that reportedly involved some members and staff of the Astana team. At the time of the initial License Commission ruling, the UCI was not in possession of those documents, so they couldn’t be factored in the commission’s decision. The UCI said it had passed those documents along to the License Commission. Any further revelations of involvement in doping by riders or staff would constitute a third positive, which is grounds for immediate revocation of a racing license.

What happens now?
The UCI didn’t release a timeline for a decision, but the License Commission will likely rule soon – within a couple of weeks. As noted above, the season is already a month old. The spring Classics season starts in earnest tomorrow and the UCI will be eager to resolve the issue quickly.

The License Commission has three general choices in front of it. It can deny the UCI’s request and allow the team to keep its license. It can revoke the first-division Pro Team license but allow the team to re-apply for a second-division Pro Continental license. Or it could revoke the license altogether, a kind of institutional death penalty.

In the last case and possibly the Pro Continental case, the team would be expected to appeal the decision to the Court of Arbitration for Sport, the highest authority for disputes in sports that are part of the Olympic movement.

CAS decision timelines are typically months, not weeks, but it will speed along particularly pressing cases. The only similar case in cycling was in 2013, when the UCI attempted to deny a top-level license to Katusha on somewhat similar grounds. Katusha won the case, which took roughly two months to decide.

What happens if Astana loses its license?
If the License Commission allows the team to apply for (and grants) a Pro Continental license, Astana could still race the 2015 season. But Pro Continental teams do not have true racing circuits of their own; they rely entirely on invitations from race promoters, especially to WorldTour events like the Tour de France.

Pro Conti status would force the team to appeal to the race organizers to extend an invitation, which might or might not be forthcoming. While most of the sport’s biggest races have already named wild card selections, it would not be difficult to add Astana since, for logistical purposes, the team had already been accounted for as a Pro Team.

However, Astana is not universally beloved in cycling. And particularly given the team’s struggles with ethics and doping, and its controversial manager, Alexandre Vinokourov, race organizers might well decide that they don’t want the possible negative attention that could come with the team’s presence.

If the commission completely revokes the license, then the team essentially folds, at least for the rest of 2015 until it could potentially apply again for 2016 (unlikely, but theoretically possible). That would put 30 riders and dozens of staff out of a job.

It’s worth noting that, under UCI rules, if a team loses its Pro Team license then all contracts are invalidated; riders would be free to seek other employment immediately. But that is a highly unlikely scenario.

Finding new teams at this stage would be almost impossible. Many teams are at UCI-mandated roster limits, and most are at budgetary limits as well. Even a rider like Nibali could be hard-pressed to find a team at this point in the season.

If we take the Katusha case as a guide, the end timeline for a CAS decision would be sometime in May. That could result in the second-worst timeframe possible, with a decision during the Giro d’Italia, where Astana’s Fabio Aru will be targeting overall victory. The only worse timeline? A decision just before or during the Tour de France. Hopefully this will be settled long before then, but there are, as they say, no guarantees.

Please enter your email or turn off your ad blocker to access all content on

Signing Out...

Are you sure you want to log out?

If you are the only person using this device,
there’s no need to log out. Just exit this page
and you won’t have to sign in again. But if
you’re on a public or shared computer, log out
to keep your account secure.